Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date: 2005-06-01 15:55:46
Message-ID: 14606.1117641346@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 4. Optionally, we set a flag on the table showing the whole table is
> frozen. Anybody writing to this table subsequently will spoil this flag.
> If the flag is set, all forms of VACUUM will return success immediately
> without performing a scan (since it is already in a perfect VACUUM FULL
> and VACUUM FREEZE state).

This bit strikes me as dangerous and not related to the original
proposal.  I don't care for the load-already-frozen-data part at all,
either.  That's not just giving up WAL protection, that's an outright
MVCC semantics violation, in return for which we get ... not much.
Certainly not any speedup in the LOAD itself.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jochem van DietenDate: 2005-06-01 16:00:28
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 15:43:24
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group